Towards competitive theorizing of strategy implementation
process – empirical evidence from applying the RBV lens
on implementation process
by
Muhammad Amjad
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire
‘Towards competitive theorizing of strategy implementation process – empirical evidence from applying the RBV lens on implementation process’ Abstract
This study identified the core knowledge gap of a lack of competitive theorizing of strategy implementation (SIMP) in the processual and resource-based views of strategy. This gap exists due to tactical perception and relative inattention to variety in strategy implementationprocess and related competitive implications. It is argued that strategy process and the RBV perspectives can provide complementary insights necessary to move towards competitive theorizing of strategy implementation. A grounded research is conducted to compare how strategy implementation patterns explain implementation success and how those patterns explain heterogeneity in resources management in different firm types – foreign and indigenous. Content analysis of the interview data revealed significant heterogeneity in the strategy implementation process patterns and achieved implementation success. These SIMP process patterns are categorised based on the approach towards strategy implementation as a strategic phenomenon, firm’s type, and thrust of implementation process. Important sources of variations in implementation success emerged in the Competitive and Tactical implementing patterns.
Three resources management activities emerged from the data and revealed important distinctions for the heterogeneous implementing patterns. The Tactical implementing patterns showed preference of strategic actorsfor use of internally available resources and acquisition of ready-made resources. The Competitive implementing patterns showed a balanced approach towards resources management by pursuing optimization of resources.These resources management heterogeneities are shaped by the SIMP process pattern and revealed implementation process performance, action timing and resources optimization as the key sources of competitiveness from strategy implementation.The empirical findings refute the notion that the role of strategy implementation is only to complement as an operational process without much competitive gains.This empirically challenges the conventional conceptions of implementation to adopt and institutionalize strategy and extends to the contribution of SIMP for strategy refinements to gain competitive gains. These findings strongly support that competitive theorizing of strategy implementation is a worthwhile scholarly pursuit via using the complementary views of strategy. Future research should build on this agenda of competitive theorizing of strategy implementation using other firm types, research settings and more micro level analysis.
Key Words: Strategy implementation process, RBV, Competitiveness, Resources
List of Contents Page No Abstract List of Contents Acknowledgements List of tables List of figures Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1 Introduction ……….. 1
1.2 Strategy Implementation (SIMP) in business practice ……… 1
1.3 Limited attention to strategy implementation research 1
1.4 Research Aim and Derived Research Questions ……….. 2
1.5. Thesis Structure ……… 3
Chapter 2 – Strategy Implementation (SIMP) research 2.1. Introduction 6
2.2. Strategy implementation 6
2.3. Locating strategy implementation in strategy research 7
2.4. Eclectic approaches to strategy implementation 8
2.5. Factor-oriented approaches 10
2.5.1. Structural Factors 11
2.5.2. Interpersonal- behavioural factors 12
2.5.3. Integrated factors approach 13
2.5.4. Implementation barriers approach 14
2.6. Process-oriented implementation research 16
2.6.1. Rational- mechanistic implementation process 17
2.6.2. Incremental, emergent, evolutionary strategy process 18
2.6.3. Contingency-oriented process and strategy implementation 20
2.7. Processual views and their treatment of strategy implementation 23
2.7.1. Strategy process and strategy implementation 23
2.7.2. Strategy as practice and strategy implementation 27
2.8. Theoretical influences in strategy implementation literature 31
2.9. Summary of the extant strategy implementation literature 32
implementation literature and its implications
2.11. Linking implementation process to outcomes and performance 37 2.12. The need to use a competitive theory like the RBV for implementation research 38
Chapter 3 – The Resource Based View (RBV) research
3.1 Introduction 41
3.2. Importance of the RBV in strategic management 41
3.3. Theoretical development of the RBV 42
3.3.1. Initial attention on resources heterogeneity, resource attributes 43 and sustainable competitive advantage
3.3.2. Dynamism and Dynamic capabilities 47
3.3.3. Responding to the criticism against the RBV concepts 49 3.3.4. Recent developments and theoretical gaps in the RBV 52
3.3.4.1. Empirical testing of the RBV 54
3.3.4.2. Continued inattention to Strategy implementation 55
3.3.4.3. Managers and resource management 59
3.3.4.4. The need for a processual approach in the RBV research 61 3.3.4.5. Processual analysis – key considerations 63 3.4. Competitive theorizing via complementary-gains research 65 – applying the RBV lens on strategy implementation process
3.5.1. Derived research questions 68
Chapter 4 – Research Methodology
4.1. Introduction 75
4.2. Grounded Theory Approach 75
4.3. Research design 78
4.3.1. Exploratory qualitative research 79
4.3.2. Need for Theory building in strategy implementation research 81
4.3.3. Philosophical underpinnings 83
4.3.4. Comparative research with analytical generalization 86
4.4. Research Settings 88
4.4.1. Research location 88
4.4.2. Sampling 89
4.4.3. Key Informants and respondent access 90
4.5. The Data collection 93
4.5.2. Pilot interview and key lessons learned 95
4.5.3. Conducting the interviews 96
4.6. The Data Analysis and Interpretation 99
4.6.1. Qualitative Content Analysis 100
4.6.2. Unitizing 102
4.6.3. Recording 104
4.7. The Coding and Categorization 106
4.7.1. The Open Coding 107
4.7.2. Categorization of the open codes 111
4.7.3. Linking Categories and sub-categories 114
4.7.4. Theoretical interpretation from categorical codes – SIMP patterns as 118 explanations of implementation success, heterogeneous resource
positions, and firm’s competitiveness
4.8. Research quality and robustness 122
4.9. Conclusions 124
Chapter 5 - Processual analysis of SIMP in different firm types – Empirical findings and discussion
5.1. Introduction 127
5.2. Strategic contexts of the researched firms 128 5.3. Heterogeneity in strategy implementation Process 130 5.3.1 Behavioural approaches to strategy implementation: Competitive or Tactical 130 5.3.2. Strategy implementation Process thrust: Proactive or Reactive 132 5.3.3. Categorizing Heterogeneous Strategy implementation Process Patterns 133 5.4. Competitive and Tactical SIMP Process Patterns – Phases and Activities 134
5.4.1. Phases in the SIMP process patterns 135
5.4.2. Implementation activities in the SIMP process patterns 139 5.5. Competitive and Tactical SIMP Patterns – variations in Implementation Success 143 5.6. Sources for variations in implementation success - Competitive vs. 145 Tactical Implementation
5.6.1. Nature of Implementation Success 146 5.6.2. Qualitative differences in SIMP activities 148
5.6.3. SIMP Process Competitiveness 150
5.6.4. SIMP Process Thrust Matching 157
5.6.5. Strategy Implementation Process Thoroughness 158
5.6.7. Synergy in strategy implementation process 169 5.6.8. Summary of the sources of implementation success variations 172
5.7. Discussion of Key Research Findings 174
5.7.1. Competitive and Tactical Strategy Implementation Approaches 174 5.7.2. Implementation Success and SIMP Process Performance 176 5.7.3. Strategy implementation process and Firm-type distinctions 178 5.7.4. Strategy implementation: distinct process and substantive phenomenon 180
5.8. Conclusion 183
Chapter 6 – Strategy implementation patterns, heterogeneous resources management and competitive implications - Empirical findings and discussion
6.1. Introduction 185
6.2. Heterogeneity in Resources Management in the SIMP patterns 186
6.2.1. Resources Accumulation 186
6.2.2. Resources Acquisitions 193
6.2.3. Resources Leveraging 198
6.3. Competitive Implications of the SIMP Process Patterns 202
6.3.1. Implementation Process Performance 202
6.3.2. Action Timing 202
6.3.3. Resources optimization within implementation process 203
6.4. Discussion of Key Research Findings 204
6.4.1. Balancing resources accumulation and resources acquisition in SIMP 204 6.4.2. Resources Optimization: a balancing approach for resources management 206 6.4.3. Resources intensity in strategy implementation 207 6.4.4. Strategy Implementation and Path Dependence 207 6.4.5. Competitive implementing process as higher order capability 209 6.5. Competitive theorizing of SIMP 211
6.6. Conclusion 214
Chapter 7 – Conclusion
7.1. Introduction 215
7.2. Research overview 215
7.3. Contributions of the Study 218
7.3.1. Implications for Theory 218
7.4. Future Research Directions and Limitations 221
7.5. Concluding Remarks 223
References Appendix
Acknowledgments
I am thankful to my supervisory team for providing their invaluable support and guidance during the PhD process. I would also like to thank all the support staff members at Lancashire Business School and UCLan, who have helped me at various junctures. The love and continuous support given by my parents and family members helped me in pursuing my doctoral studies. I am grateful to have them in my life.
List of Tables Page No
Table 2.1: Eclectic approaches in the strategy implementation literature 10 Table 2.2. Summary of the extant strategy implementation literature 33 Table 2.3. Key implications of problem areas in implementation literature for research 35 Table 3.1: The development of the RBV over time - phases and key issues 43 Table 3.2: Recent developments in the RBV and current research gaps 53 Table 4.1: Key issues in rigorous Grounded Theory – Suddaby’s Guidelines 77
Table 4.2: Overview of the researched firms 91
Table 4.3: Semi-structured Interview guide used for this research 97
Table 4.4: An overview of important content analysis concepts drawn from 102 Krippendorff (2004) as used in this research
Table 4.5: Illustrative examples of open codes regarding SIMP activities and 109 process issues (RQ 1)
Table 4.6: Illustrative examples of open codes for SIMP and resources 110 Management, competitive gains (RQ2 and RQ 3)
Table 4.7: The illustrative examples of categories and the use of open codes to 112 saturate those categories
Table 4.8: The illustrative example of coding of a resource management 117 category: Resource acquisition – SIMP sub- categories, temporal
nature, linkages and firm type relevance
Table 4.9: The illustrative example of integrating the SIMP pattern, 121 heterogeneity in resource positions and competitive outcomes
Table 4.10: Research rigour and trustworthiness – as achieved by this research 123 Table 5.1: Key contextual information about the researched firms 128 Table 5.2: Examples of strategy implementation as a distinct, substantive phenomenon 134 Table 5.3: Heterogeneous SIMP Process Patterns - Foreign vs. Indigenous Firms 137 Table 5.4: Phases in the Competitive Strategy Implementation (SIMP) Process Patterns 138 Table 5.5: Phases in the Tactical Strategy Implementation (SIMP) Process Patterns 140 Table 5.6: SIMP Activities and their definitions 144 Table 5.7: Strategy Implementation Patterns and Implementation Success 146 – the Indigenous vs. the Foreign firms
Table 5.8: Summary Overview of Research Findings - the SIMP Patterns 173 Table 5.9: Examples of strategy implementation as a distinct, substantive phenomenon 181 Table 6.1: Research Findings – Resources accumulation in the SIMP patterns 186 Table 6.2: Research Findings – Resource acquisitions in the SIMP patterns 194 Table 6.3: Synthesis for competitive theorizing of strategy implementation 212
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Overview of thesis structure 4
Figure 2.1: Linking the relevant research gaps in strategy implementation and the RBV 70 with the derived research questions
Figure 5.1 Broader structure of the empirical chapter 5 127 Figure 6.1: Broader structure of the empirical chapter 6 185
1
Chapter 1 – Introduction 1.1. Introduction
The focus of this exploratory research is how strategy implementation contributes to the competitiveness of different firm types. This chapter introduces the research aim, focus and derived research questions. The chapter concludes with an overview of the thesis structure.
1.2. Strategy Implementation (SIMP) in business practice
Strategy implementation is recognized as a key management challenge (Dobni, 2003). However, despite this claimed importance, implementation is difficult for many managers (Noble, 1999b). It is long argued that well-planned strategies lead to superior performance, only when they are successfully implemented (Li et al., 2010). Effective implementation proves difficult due to the need for coordinated efforts of individuals across firms (Olson et al., 2005). This is, arguably, because of the lack of enough knowledge about strategy implementation than strategic planning (Hrebiniak, 2006; Alexander, 1991). Miller (2002) found that almost seventy percent of new strategic initiatives could not be implemented successfully and this highlights the difficulty of successful SIMP in actual business conditions. This gap between strategic planning and the implementation of planned strategies is sometimes referred to as the execution gap (Bossidy and Charan, 2002).
1.3. Limited attention to strategy implementation research
Overall, strategy implementation remains a comparatively under-researched area in the strategy literature (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006). There have been consistent calls for more attention to strategy implementation issues but strategy planning and analysis attracted much more research attention in strategy literature (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010; Chebat, 1999). Additionally, existing research and conceptual literature positions strategy implementation as an operational phenomenon that is largely dependent on strategy planning, without much strategic contributions (Barney and Mackey, 2005). There is currently a renewed interest amongst strategy researchers to explore strategy –as- practice and strategy process issues (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010; Johnson et al., 2007). The Resource-based View
2 (RBV) literature does not provide much insight into the nature of strategy implementation and potential competitive contributions (Barney, 2001a). These issues are discussed in detail in the chapters two and three based on an extensive review of the strategy implementation, strategy process and the RBV literatures.
1.4. Research Aim and Derived Research Questions
Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) highlighted the need for empirical research into the performance outcomes of strategy implementation process. Similarly, Kraaijenbrink et al. (2010) argued for the need of more processual research in the RBV. This research aimed to fill the research gap of the lack of competitive theorizing of strategy implementation by seeking complementary insights from strategy implementation process and resources management. This is based on the knowledge gaps related to a tactical view of strategy implementation in the extant SIMP literature, insufficient attention to implementation process heterogeneity and inattention to strategy implementation in the RBV (Li et al., 2010; Barney, 2001b). Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) and Kraaijenbrink et al. (2010) have also emphasized that processual research needs to be well-grounded in the actual practice of firms.
In this context, this research examines a) how strategy implementation process patterns explain heterogeneity in implementation success and resources management and b) how this heterogeneity explains competitive gains from strategy implementation. Based on the identified knowledge gaps, the research aim is ‗To explore the role of strategy implementation in competitiveness by bringing together the strategy process and the RBV perspectives.‘ This thesis applies the RBV lens on strategy implementation process in different firm contexts and explores the heterogeneity in SIMP process patterns and the role of SIMP process patterns as sources of resource heterogeneity and competitive performance. This study sets out to answer three main research questions derived from the relevant knowledge gaps as the literature review chapters two and three provide theoretical substantiation of the research aim, research focus and research questions:
3 1. How SIMP process patterns and underlying activities explain the differences in implementation success among the indigenous firms and foreign multinational subsidiaries?
2. How SIMP activities and process patterns explain heterogeneous resources management of the foreign multinational subsidiaries and indigenous firms? 3. How SIMP activities and process patterns contribute to competitiveness in the
foreign multinational subsidiaries and indigenous firms?
1.5. Thesis structure
This thesis is divided into seven chapters plus references and appendices and Figure 1.1 presents a broader overview of the thesis structure. Chapter One begins with a description of the importance of strategy implementation, followed by the research aim and the derived research objectives. The chapter concludes with a description of the thesis structure.
Chapter Two provides an in-depth and critical evaluation of the relevant SIMP
literature. The relatively less attention to SIMP issues in the mainstream strategy literature highlights the fragmented nature of SIMP literature and the tactical, operational perception of strategy implementation. Different variance and processual conceptualizations of strategy implementation are critically reviewed and the lack of the RBV as a theoretical perspective in SIMP research is identified as an important gap. The consequences of a lack of theoretical focus and the operational view of strategy implementation process are outlined as key research gaps for understanding the strategic value of successful implementation.
Chapter three present the critical review of the RBV literature and identifies major
inattention to strategy implementation issues in the RBV literature. The recent calls for adopting process approach in the RBV research are critically reviewed and the research gaps of inattention to strategy implementation and need for process research are used to determine the research aim, research focus and three derived research questions.
4 Chapter 1 - Introduction
(Research overview, derived research questions, thesis structure)
Literature Review Chapter 2 - Strategy Implementation
(SIMP) research (Eclectic approaches to SIMP,
Processual views and their treatment of strategy implementation, the need to use a competitive theory like the RBV for implementation research)
Chapter 3 - The Resource Based View (RBV) research
(Theoretical development of the RBV, the need Competitive theorizing via complementary-gains research: applying the RBV lens on strategy implementation process, derived research questions)
Chapter 4 – Research Methodology (Grounded Theory Approach, research design, qualitative content analysis, research quality and robustness)
Chapter 5 –Processual analysis of SIMP in different firm types
(Heterogeneity in strategy
implementation process, Competitive and Tactical SIMP patterns – variations in implementation success, sources for variations in implementation success, discussion of key research findings)
Empirical Findings and Discussion
Chapter 6 – Strategy implementation patterns, heterogeneous resources management and competitive implications
(Heterogeneity in resources
management in the SIMP patterns, resources management and competitive implications of the SIMP process
patterns, discussion of key research findings, competitive theorizing of SIMP)
Chapter 7 – Conclusions (Research overview, contributions of the study –theoretical and practical implications of the thesis, limitations, future research directions)
5
Chapter four provides a commentary of the grounded theory foundations as adopted
and used for this exploratory research. The inductive – qualitative approach is detailed for this research among the indigenous and foreign firms in Pakistan. The key issues in data collection are outlined and the qualitative content analysis of the research data is discussed. The measures taken by the researcher to improve research quality are also discussed.
Chapter five presents the empirical findings for the heterogeneity in implementation
process patterns among the foreign and indigenous firms. A detailed analysis of these SIMP patterns is presented for the achieved levels of implementation success in the researched firm types. Different sources of variations in implementation success in different strategy implementation patterns are discussed. The key findings are discussed for their comparison with the relevant literature. The distinction for the identified Competitive and Tactical implementing patterns are substantiated and unique insights are established.
Chapter six presents the research findings for the heterogeneity in resources
management in different strategy implementation patterns. The identified resources management activities are discussed for important distinctions in the Competitive and Tactical implementation patterns. The resources management heterogeneities and the implementation process as source of these heterogeneities are discussed in detail. The findings are then compared with the extant literature to establish important analytical pointers for the competitive theorizing of strategy implementation through complementary gains from processual and resources analysis of SIMP process patterns.
Chapter Seven begins with the research overview, followed by the discussion of the
contribution of this study to knowledge. The theoretical and managerial implications are presented. This chapter concludes by identifying potential future research avenues and limitations.
6
Chapter 2 – Strategy Implementation (SIMP) research 2.1. Introduction
This chapter presents a critical review of the existing literature on strategy implementation. Initially, strategy implementation is located within the wider strategy literature. The issues of limited empirical attention towards strategy implementation and the eclectic approaches employed in the conceptualization are highlighted. The processual view of strategy and its variants – strategy process and recent strategy-as-practice, are reviewed for their orientations towards implementation. The processual thinking and its theoretical bases are discussed concluding the need to study implementation process and their micro details in a variety of firm contexts. The areas of agreement and insufficient knowledge in existing implementation literature are then summarised. The core gaps within the implementation literature are identified as the lack of conceptualising and theorizing within particular discipline perspectives; an overly operational view of implementation; and, insufficient attention to performance consequences of strategy implementation. This critique in turn establishes the need for adopting the RBV as an important theoretical lens to study the strategy implementation process and the performance implications. The chapter concludes by emphasizing the relevance of RBV for understanding implementation patterns and their underlying mechanisms, and linking the implementation process with firm‘s performance.
2.2. Strategy implementation
Strategy implementation is a complex process involving different actors and activities that are embedded in firm‘s context (Noble, 1999a, Nutt, 1998). Successful implementation is important to reap benefits from well-planned strategies. However, implementation of strategic decisions poses significant challenges (Bonoma, 1984; Ranft and Lord, 2002). Implementation remains difficult for many managers, arguably, because of the lack of enough knowledge about strategy implementation in comparison to decision making and strategic planning (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006; Alexander, 1991). Miller (2002) found that almost seventy percent of new strategic initiatives could not be implemented successfully and this highlights the difficulty of successful SIMP in actual business conditions. Effective
7 implementation proves difficult due to the need for coordinated efforts of individuals across firms (Olson et al., 2005). This gap between strategic planning and the implementation of planned strategies is sometimes referred to as ‗the execution gap‘ (Bossidy and Charan, 2002) or a ‗knowing – doing gap‘ (Pfeffer and Sutton, 2000).
2.3. Locating strategy implementation in strategy research
A number of different perspectives have been applied to the strategy research field, including the Institutionalist, Economic, Behaviouralist and Integrating perspectives (Jenkins, Ambrosini and Collier, 2007). The search for superior and sustainable competitive performance remains the core of much strategy research literature which may be broadly categorized into, three streams (Powell, 2001): (a) superiority in decision making and strategic planning (Mintzberg, 1990; Porter, 1994); (b) valuable and difficult to imitate resource heterogeneity amongst firms as drivers of strategic planning and competitive advantage (Barney, 2001a); and (c) organizational design and successful implementation (Noble, 1999a; Edmondson et al., 2001). Streams (a) and (b) are focussed on strategy formulation, whereas stream (c) is directed towards strategy implementation issues.
Strategy implementation is generally conceptualised as complementary to business success (Barney, 2001a). Implementation is considered more of an art as compared to planning (Shanley and Peteraf, 2006). Some strategy process scholars like Mintzberg (1978) and Pettigrew and Whipp (1991) have argued that strategy formulation and implementation are intertwined without much clarity of the start and end points or the two. Some scholars consider process related issues to be implementation oriented (Shanley and Peteraf, 2006), whilst others consider implementation and formulation to be too closely intertwined that it is futile to separate the two (Mintzberg et al., 1998; Chakravarthy and Doz, 1992). This suggests that the strategy process or a strategy formation process is an all-encompassing term, sufficient to cover everything. Therefore, the potential implementation-formulation dichotomy is irrelevant, although this does not mean that implementation issues should be ignored in strategy process research. Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) and Noble (1999b) argued against black-boxing of strategy implementation in strategy process and emphasized the need for empirical research focussed on implementation.
8 However, the conceptual distinction between formulation and implementation, similar to the content-process dichotomy, remains evident in strategy process work (Floyd and Woolridge, 2000). There have been repeated calls in the strategy literature for the need to do more research on implementation issues from a broader perspective (Noble, 1999a), the strategy process perspective (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2006), and the RBV lens (Barney, 2001a). However, these repeated calls have not received much empirical interest (Foss, 2011) and, sadly, strategy implementation continues to receive less attention than strategic planning in the strategy literature. Strategy implementation needs significantly more research to support conceptual development and rectify the imbalance in the wider strategy literature (Chebat, 1999; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2006).
Such a proposal has received support from a number of sources, including the recent calls for more processual research in the RBV (Kraaijenbrink, 2010; Maritan and Peteraf, 2011), more attention to detail of micro-processes and micro-activities in practice (Johnson et al., 2003; Jarzabkowski, 2005), and exploring the black box of micro-foundations of the RBV and competitive advantage (Foss, 2011; Barney, 2001a; Lippman and Rumelt, 2003). This may be seen as an important juncture in strategy research, providing a crucial opportunity to conduct theoretically important
yet practically useful implementation research. Such developments provided the key
motivation for this present research.
2.4. Eclectic approaches to strategy implementation
Strategy implementation does not have a shared conceptualization nor theoretical foundations since different scholars employing their respective sub-domains have adopted a more eclectic approach to strategy implementation (Noble, 1999a). Much of strategy implementation research has focussed on execution as an operational process with related outcomes, instead of linking strategy implementation with strategic competitive performance outcomes (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2006; Sabherwal and Rubey, 1993; Dederichs, 2010).
A review of the extant strategy implementation literature shows that the approaches to implementation may be categorised into two broadly differentiated streams. These broad approaches are termed here as factor-oriented and process-oriented
9 implementation. This broad categorisation into factor or process orientation draws upon Mohr‘s (1982) popular distinction between variance and process approaches to research. It allows integrating the fragmented strategy implementation literature and situating it in the more mainstream strategy thinking. These two approaches further split into sub-streams based on their emphases on the types of factors or the nature of process being conceptualised for successful implementation (Skivington and Daft, 1991; Noble, 1999; Li et al., 2010).
One common theme across these two approaches is to view implementation from a problematic lens, either distilling success factors to avoid implementation barriers or to overcome the consequences of implementation barriers to achieve successful implementation. There has been considerable attention to the ostensive part of implementation although there remains a lack of attention to the performative details of strategy implementation activities and processes (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2006; Feldman and Pentland, 2003). Table 2.1 outlines these broad approaches, sub-streams, and representative scholars to illustrate this diversity and fragmentation in the extant strategy implementation literature:
10
Table 2.1: Eclectic approaches in the strategy implementation literature Implementation
approach Sub-stream Representative scholars
Factor-oriented implementation Structural factors Interpersonal-behavioural factors Integrated factors approach Implementation barriers Gupta (1987); Hrebiniak (2006)
Nutt (1988); Dooley et al. (2000); Bourgeois and Broadwin (1984);
Skivington and Daft (1991); Govindarajan (1988); Hambrick and Cannella (1989); Olson, Slater, and Hult (2005)
Alexander (1985, 1991); Olsen et al. (1992); Heide et al. (2002); Kaufmann and Becker (2005) Process-oriented implementation Rational-mechanistic implementation process Incremental - Emergent process Contingency oriented process Andrews (1971); Hrebiniak and Joyce, (1984, 2005); Li et al. (2010); Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006)
Mintzberg and Waters (1985); Quinn (1988); Pettigrew and Whipp (1991); Van de Ven (1992);
Hart (1992); Roth et al.
(1991); Van de Ven and Poole (1995); Sabherwal and
Robbey (1993); Andersen (2004); Jarzabkowski (2008)
2.5. Factor-oriented approaches
Much of the empirical strategy implementation research is factor or issue-oriented, attempting to address specific implementation factors and related issues. Factor-oriented approaches look at an individual factor or a collection of factors related to implementation success or failure. These approaches represent the wide variety of thinking in management research, even if they address the process dimensions as variables (Langley, 1999). Skivington and Daft (1991) and Noble (1999a) organised their literature reviews around such factors. Skivington and Daft (1991) identified
11 structural framework and process related factors. Noble (1999a) focussed on conceptual and empirical publications to discuss structural and interpersonal-process factors of successful implementation. He showed the fragmentation in the evolution of strategy implementation as a field of study. Noble (1999a) concurred with Skivington and Daft (1991) that strategy implementation success requires elements from different views and, consequently, implementation researchers need to consider elements from a broader perspective. In general, these approaches overlooked the important issues of the interaction of factors during the implementation process, their temporality, and their path or situational dependence.
2.5.1. Structural Factors
The structural factors view considers organizational structure, strategy content, authority, incentive mechanisms, control and monitoring as crucial elements for successful implementation (Hrebiniak, 2005). These factors suggest a mechanistic and administrative top-down approach towards strategy implementation, examining the more obvious issues in organizational design. Strategy implementation in this context is argued to involve top management, the middle management and down-the-line employees in a hierarchical manner (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984). The issues of managerial authority and control in line with organizational strategy - structure alignment, hold central importance for successful implementation (Drazin and Howard, 1984; Galbraith and Kazanjian, 1986). Task and functional formalization, organizational systems, authority centralization and integration within the organizational structure (Roth, 1992), also termed the ‗organizational framework‘ (Skivington and Daft, 1991, p. 48), are argued to provide the media for successful implementation. Organizational systems such as budgeting, training and incentives help in resource allocation and provide a well-structured direction for staff members to pursue (Hrebiniak, 2005).
This mechanistic approach largely ignored interactions among human actors in strategy implementation. Instead, a rational logic is followed drawing on the earlier conceptualizations of Andrews (1971) and Ansoff (1965) suggesting a generic route for all firms. The contextual differences amongst firms that emanate from their resources and strategic choices are largely ignored (Dierickx and Cool, 1989; Collis, 1994). Similarly, the implementation-strategic planning interrelation is not as
12 straightforward as it would seem as evidenced in the implementation gaps in practice (Olson et al., 2005). The failure to reflect interpersonal issues led to research inclusive of interpersonal factors in strategy implementation.
2.5.2. Interpersonal- behavioural factors
The Interpersonal-behavioural factors view looks at interpersonal issues in top leadership (Nutt, 1983), consensus building (Dooley et al., 2000), strategy communication across the organization (Rapert et al., 2002; Hambrick and Cannella, 1989), and resource allocation (Cespedes, 1991). Skivington and Daft (1991) emphasised the importance of process modalities in addition to the structural issues by drawing from the works of Meyer (1982), Quinn and Cameron (1983) and Mackenzie (1986) on process dimensions related to the individuals involved in implementation. These interpersonal-process factors highlight the role of interaction amongst organizational actors, formal and informal communication and motivation in strategy implementation. Understanding information processing behaviours (Miniace and Falter, 1996; Daft and Langel, 1984) and managerial power associated with key decisions are considered important for successful implementation (Skivington and Daft, 1991). Implementation is considered to be an outcome of idea selling and support manoeuvring among top and middle management. Top management still retain the important driving force and implementation is driven by the tactics employed by senior management.
Interpersonal factors challenge the assumption of a shared common understanding of the organizational strategies throughout the firm during implementation. Skivington and Daft (1991) suggested that informal communication takes place horizontally in organizations and that there may well be differences in interpretation and understanding between members of the organization. Pfeffer (1981; 1992) and Frankwick et al. (1994) discussed political influences in firms and the skills needed by individuals to survive. These political dimensions in implementation are ignored by the structural factors view (Mintzberg, 1983). Autonomous strategic behaviours (Guth and McMillan, 1986), diffusionary processes (Leonard-Barton and Deschamps, 1988), appropriate leadership styles (Nutt, 1995) and strategic consensus (Rapert et al., 2002) are other important interaction factors.
13 Clearly, the interpersonal-process factors do not answer all the questions associated with successful implementation such as the achievement of fit between strategy and structure (Hoffman et al., 1992; Slater and Narver, 1995), governance (Dosi et al. 2008), inter-functional coordination (Shipley, 1994; Kim et al. 2003), and control systems (Chang and Taylor, 1999).
2.5.3. Integrated factors approach
Skivington and Daft (1991) and Noble (1999a) found that structural and interpersonal factors are generally presented in strategy implementation literature as extremes. However, those authors also recognized that both factors complement each other in successful strategy implementation, instead of being viewed as the opposite ends of a continuum. There are some authors, albeit limited, who have argued for a combination of structural and interpersonal-behavioural factors (Hambrick and Cannella, 1989; Olson, Slater, and Hult, 2005). Those authors represent an integrated factors approach that necessitates the generation of a more integrated conceptualisation.
Hambrick and Canella (1989) presented a framework in which successful implementation reflected the ability of top management to sell and champion the selected strategy, whilst ensuring the necessary substantive actions to implement the strategy. They argued for substantive actions associated with resource allocation, organizational structure, people appointments and selling activities upward, downward and across the firm are necessary to achieve implementation success. Their emphasis, however, remained on the presence of key factors with selling as the major activity to ensure successful implementation. Broad-based inputs and obstacle assessment associated with implementation were identified as starting factors. Olson, Slater and Hult (2005) identified four combinations of structure-behaviour types labelled as Management Dominant, Customer- Centric Innovators, Customer-Centric Cost Controllers, and Middle Ground.
Olson et al. also matched those four combinations with three of the Miles and Snow (1978) typology of strategies – analyzer, prospectors and defenders (low cost, differentiated). Olson et al. considered formalization, centralization, and specialization as key factors of organizational structure. Customer orientation,
14 innovation orientation, competitor orientation and internal/cost orientation were considered as behavioural factors. The combinations of structural-behavioural factors were matched with different strategies to arrive at configurations that may lead to successful implementation. This work is similar to Mintzberg‘s configurations (1979); however, Mintzberg‘s work is more processual in nature and Olson et al.‘s work is more variance oriented. This integrated factors approach emphasizes the integration of different factors; the lack of attention to the processual nature of strategy implementation necessitates further work to explore temporality and path dependency in implementation processes. Furthermore the integration of implementation factors is presented more as a tactical arrangement and without any direct performance linkage. Similarly, there is no significant theoretical foundation adopted in this body of work and a major gap remains in terms of adopting a mainstream economic or behavioural approach within the variance-oriented implementation frameworks.
2.5.4. Implementation barriers approach
This represents the most voluminous part of the strategy implementation literature. Much of strategy implementation research has revolved around exploration of barriers impeding implementation in firms within different contexts. This approach generally seeks to focus on problems associated with successful implementation, identifying the potential barriers and then suggesting solutions to overcome them (Shah, 2005; Heide et al., 2002). Implementation is viewed as a difficult, challenging and operational level phenomenon with barriers management being the key. This focus on potential barriers and problems, as mentioned later, has been a major reason behind the current lack of insights into how implementation contributes to superior performance. The repetition in this body of literature suggests common types of barrier, involving both behavioural and structural dimensions, with researchers attempting to look either individual or collections of strategy implementation barriers.
Alexander (1985) found the key barriers to be the lack of employee capabilities, poor communication of strategy, exceeding the planned time, and unclear identification of tasks and responsibilities. Jauch and Glueck (1988) discussed the lack of sufficient executive time being given to implementation of a strategic decision as a major
15 barrier. Olsen et al., (1992) found that the lack of financial and human resources and insufficient allocation of resources contributed to implementation failures. Eisenstat (1993) mentioned that the lack of coordination, lack of employee capabilities, and insufficient leadership by line managers also acted as major barriers to implementation.
Al-Ghamdi (1998) found that ten strategy implementation barriers were most common among the UK firms. Those barriers, similar to Alexander (1985), showed that strategy implementation remained problematic due to barriers such as the distraction of management from the implementation of a strategic decision; more time taken for implementation than planned; lack of planning for any major problems during implementation; and poor information systems for implementation monitoring. Heide et al. (2002) conducted a case study in a Norwegian ferry-cruise company to probe barriers related to issues like resource allocation, organizational culture, learning, personnel management, and organizational structure and control systems. Alashloo et al. (2005) researched Iran‘s Higher Education (HE) sector and later categorized implementation barriers into four categories namely planning consequences, organizational, managerial and individual issues. They also found that the lack of exact planning and unsuitable training systems were the most important barriers, similar to the findings of Alexander (1985) and Al-Ghamdi (1998). Shah‘s (2005) survey revealed that Indian managers perceive issues like inadequate management skills, ill-defined key implementation tasks, and lack of employee commitment as obstacles to strategy implementation. It is however, not possible from Shah‘s analysis to identify which implementation barriers are peculiar to the Indian business context. Kaufmann and Becker (2005) looked at barriers to Balanced Scorecards (BSC) implementation among foreign multinationals in Brazil. They found the lack of commitment, adverse support from consultants, lack of top management support, insufficient alignment of strategy, objectives and structure and lack of completeness as major barriers. This is consistent with the research on difficulties in BSC implementation (Voelpel et al., 2006).
Overall, this approach problematizes strategy implementation. This sub-stream of strategy implementation literature is occupied with finding different barriers without any disposition towards major strategic management theories like Transaction Cost
16 Economics or the Resource-based view (RBV). There is an emphasis here on barriers and their influence without much consideration of how those barriers came into being over time or how these barriers may hinder the change patterns and lead to ineffective and inefficient choices in firms. This highlights the need to consider competitive disadvantages resulting from implementation failures (West III and DeCastro, 2001). However, since the aim of this thesis is designed to research implementation success, such avenues will not be pursued further, since the preceding discussion is considered to be sufficient for the purpose of highlighting the variable nature of implementation barrier research.
2.6. Process-oriented implementation research
The processual view of strategy implementation has been influenced by scholars‘ conceptualisation of implementation within the strategy process (Sminia, 2009; Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst 2006). The key issues associated with this approach are the intentionality and rational structuring versus the emergence of strategy and how distinct strategy implementation is considered in the strategy process (Chakravarthy et al., 2003). Much of this processual implementation literature has focused on strategic change and how change projects are implemented in different organisations. Jarzabkowski (2003; 2008) noted that there is a need to conduct implementation research for strategic continuity as well. The issues of organisational buy-in, management leadership, provision of the required culture, and strategy communication to the organisation became the focus of implementation process research (Li et al., 2010). Sminia (2009) considered change and continuity trajectories as important avenues for strategy research.
There is some disagreement among strategy scholars concerning how they view the strategy implementation and strategy process. For some scholars, like Shanley and Petaraf (2006) and Barney and Zajac (1994) strategy implementation is an issue of process. Those authors have considered strategy process as the embodiment of strategy implementation; for them process is implementation. There are others, who consider the strategy implementation process as one type of process that is a part of the wider strategy formation process (Sminia, 2009).
17 This distinctive assumption of whether process is implementation or implementation
is one of the process types is an important issue. This represents another dichotomy,
rarely identified in the SIMP literature, among other dichotomies of process vs. content and implementation vs. formulation. It is important to note that authors like Johnson et al. (2003) and Jarzabkowski and Spee (2009) see implementation as a separate process to strategic decision making. Chakravarthy et al. (2003) looked at implementation and formulation as intermingled, similar to Mintzberg (1987), yet they also recognised that there are distinctive decisions and actions in both. Whittington (2007) criticised Mintzberg for his over-emphasis on emergence and yet suggesting configurations. Whittington (2007) argued that Mintzberg‘s work does not help managerial practice due primarily to the lack of clear practical guidelines.
Process-oriented implementation research looked at agency and structural issues in dynamic modes of transition and change (Barnett and Burgelman, 1996). There is a recent debate within the processual view of strategy as to whether looking at the whole process is more useful than looking at the micro-foundations in terms of constituent activities and their interactions in the process in the macro sense. This debate has led to the development of calls for looking at the processual dimension at the meso-level (Sminia, 2009) or micro level (Johnson et al., 2007). The Strategy as Practice view (Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009) is an attempt to look at practitioners, practices and praxis involved in strategic activities within organizations. There are some major differences in the details and emphasis between proponents of the strategy-as-process and strategy-as-practice views (Whittington, 2007) though there is an agreement that both share a processual view of strategy (Langley, 2007). Langley also agreed that process interactions and micro details therein do provide a more meaningful analysis of organizational and managerial practices. Different sub-streams in the process-oriented implementation research are discussed hereunder.
2.6.1. Rational- mechanistic implementation process
The Rational-mechanistic process views implementation as a part of a rational strategy process in which formulation distinctly precedes implementation (Andrews, 1971). This represents the classical strategic management process in which implementation is argued to seamlessly follow strategic formulation (Ansoff, 1965). A combination of structural and behaviour factors lead to implementation process
18 success (Olson, Slater, and Hult, 2005). However, implementation is still considered an outcome of good planning by top management and execution by other organizational members (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 1984, 2005). Some plans are needed for implementation to proceed as it is seen as a phase in the strategy process that logically follows formulation (Bourgeois and Broadwin, 1984).
This approach views strategic planning as the avenue of strategic decision making and implementation as the enactment phase with actions that realize those decisions. This approach has faced strong criticism from the emergent view of the strategy process for employing simplistic assumptions of rationality and linearity of process (Mintzberg, 1987). Hrebiniak and Joyce (2005) made a strong and passionate defence of the rational, linear strategy process with strategy implementation as a follower of strategic planning. They argued that it is not possible to implement anything, without knowing what to implement and thus the classical distinction of formulation-implementation. Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) and Li et al. (2010) discussed some gaps in strategy implementation research and identified the rational-mechanistic approach for further implementation process research.
2.6.2. Incremental, emergent, evolutionary strategy process
Some scholars considered incremental and emergent strategy-making as distinct modes of strategizing (Quinn, 1988; Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; and Idenburg, 1993). However, both incremental and emergent strategizing share a common perception of the sequence of thinking and action in strategy making (Canales and Vila, 2005). The incremental-emergent view perceives that strategy is not planned or rationalised; instead, firms may catch the ‗reality in flight‘ (Pettigrew, 2003: 302). The incremental/emergent strategy process views that strategy formulation and implementation are intertwined in a broader strategy process (Mintzberg and Water, 1985; Bryson and Bromiley, 1993). Those authors argue that it is difficult and less appealing to explore either as separate processes due to neither being distinct. Strategy formation process simultaneously covers both formulation and implementation, though it is unclear what is implementation or when it is successful. Some incrementalists (for example, Quinn, 1988) view implementation as following
19 plans though some emergent choices may result in logical changes during the implementation process itself.
Others (Mintzberg and Waters, 1985; Van de Ven, 1992) were more interested in the overall strategy process being fuzzy yet focussed more on content emergence during the process (see Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006). This approach challenged the rationality dialogue in strategy and argued for managerial agency being driven by other motives such as politics (March, 1994; Pettigrew, 1992) and managerial gains (Woolridge et al., 2008). There is also an argument of blurring of the content and process distinction in the firm‘s behaviour in practice (Reger and Huff, 1993). However, recently scholars have called for attention to micro activities and explore deeper in such blurring to understand how managers strategize (Johnson et al., 2003).
The incrementalists view posits a starting point in the strategy process where the organisational members initially decide on the major course of action but change the strategy in-flight. The implementation of strategy is intricately linked with the formulation of strategy. However, this is not clear in this conceptualisation of how and where implementation begins or ends. Similarly, there is a lack of clarity about the role of different actors in the strategy process. The implementation of strategy is conceptualized as intricately linked with the formulation of strategy. However, a lack of clarity remains as to how and where implementation begins or ends. Similarly, the role of different actors in strategy process remains unclear. The more extreme emergent view looked at the strategy process being completely emergent and without a clearly defined strategy. This issue of a lack of clarity relating to the process details is criticised by Whittington (2007) and Johnson et al. (2003).
There is a need to clarify how implementation is organised in the cases of emergent strategy without any goals as it defies a large part of the goal-oriented strategy literature and ‗black boxes‘ strategy implementation issues in a larger process. It is important for strategy implementation research to be clear and not vague as implementation is about decisions and actions that enable strategic direction. It remains a poignant area for future strategy implementation research to explicate the complex details of how firms organize their strategy implementation process in incremental and emergent approaches. Similarly, there is a need to explore how
20 these processes and approaches to strategy implementation exist in different firm contexts (Li et al., 2010).
The micro-dynamics of emergent strategy remain largely unknown, even in the face of strategy-as-practice, and empirical research into middle manager‘s contribution to emerging strategy is very limited (Wooldridge et al., 2008). Whittington (2007) famously criticised Mintzberg (1994) for a lack of practical insight into managerial and organizational behaviours during emergence thus leaving strategy process as a black box with endless randomness. The level of randomness in strategy emergence has received critical attention from some other scholars like Chakravarthy and White (2002) and Lovas and Ghoshal (2000). They argue that firms find a way to guide the strategy evolution process around strategic intent. March (1994: 45; cited in Lovas and Ghoshal, 2000), for example, has explicitly discussed this possibility: 'The idea is not that any imaginable organization can be designed and built but that natural developmental processes ... can be affected significantly by relatively small, timely interventions. The engineering of evolution involves understanding those processes well enough to intervene in history and produce organizational effects.' However, it is not very clear how strategy implementation activities take shape during such evolution or how that impacts the change or consistency in strategy content (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006).
2.6.3. Contingency-oriented process and strategy implementation
This sub-stream looks at the variety of implementation process patterns and highlights the role of contingency in implementation success (Sabherwal and Robey, 1993; Andersen, 2004; Jarzabkowski, 2008). Firms arguably pursue either a single strategy process type i.e. rational-mechanistic, incremental or emergent or an integrated mix of different patterns depending upon contextual differences. Theoretically, this research stream does not lend itself towards supporting either the rational or the emergent extremes of strategy process (Hrebiniak and Joyce, 2005; Mintzberg, 1978). Furthermore, this contingency approach rejects the notion of a universally similar implementation process as suggested by Schultz et al. (1987), Kaplan and Norton (1996) and Bossidy and Charan (2002). There is an
‗option-21 theoretic‘ logic that underlies the contingency process stream (Bowman and Hurry, 1993: 760).
Interestingly, limited attention has been paid to the processual contingencies in implementation in comparison to the implementation factor contingencies. Strategic processes are viewed as the reflections of organizational context and the behaviours of strategic actors (Pettigrew, 1992; Van de Ven and Poole, 2005). Govindarajan (1988: 828) argued the need to recognise contingency as the ‗most critical aspect of strategy implementation‘ in large organizations. However, his search of implementation factor contingencies, and not SIMP processual contingencies, is similar to much of the SIMP literature (see for example, Bryson and Bromiley, 1993). Govindarajan (1988) also emphasised the need to match administrative mechanisms with competitive strategy, either low cost or differentiation.
Hart (1992) discussed different strategy-making modes focussing on the roles and interactions of top management and other organisational actors during decision making. However, his conceptualisation relied more on the decision-making for strategic formulation with implementation being simply one task or middle managers. The argument for implementation was rationale-oriented and down-the-line actors were identified as subordinates with implementation responsibilities. Pettigrew and Whipp (1993) mentioned that firms start with intentions and then incrementally change their strategies. They identified implementation as a sub-process within a larger strategy process with the primary focus on change and strategy-making (Sminia, 2009).
Sabherwal and Robey (1993) used the strategic initiatives approach to explore patterns in implementation of information systems. They identified six archetypical patterns in the implementation process, depending upon the implementation approach of firms. Those patterns included textbook style, logical minimalist, traditional off-the-shelf, outsourced cooperative, problem-driven minimalist, and in-house trial and error. Sabherwal and Robey considered those archetypes as ‗the alternative courses of events that may be followed during the implementation process.‘ (p. 571) However, they recognised that their classification was based on actions of firms without consideration of actors and no attempt was made to link implementation process pursued with implementation success. They identified the
22 need for future research to assess the link between different implementation process types and implementation success as defined by stakeholders.
Anderson (2004) adopted a variance definition of the strategy formation process and found that an integrated approach was better to develop effective strategy for firm‘s performance in a highly turbulent international environment, as compared to either the planning or the decentralized emergence approach. Anderson‘s work hinted implicitly, although lacking the detail, at the existence of different patterns of strategy implementation depending upon the strategy-formation mode adopted. This supports the need for processual studies of strategy implementation to analyze the SIMP patterns linked to implementation success. In a similar vein, Jarzabkowski (2008) looked at the variety in strategy process in the Universities within the UK. She found procedural, interactive and integrated behavioural approaches of strategy shaping by top management at those universities. Two patterns of sequential and simultaneous strategy shaping by top management in action and institutional realms were identified. This reflected the contingencies of strategizing behaviours and strategizing patterns in shaping strategy and structuring organisational realms. The simultaneous strategizing helped structure both strategy and actions supporting the on-going implementation of strategies.
Jarzabkowski (2008) highlighted that the integrative approach to strategizing via procedural arrangements and interactive dialogue helped in the implementation of on-going strategies. She further highlighted that strategic continuity and strategic change may require different behavioural approaches from top management thus needing more attention by researchers to variations in top management‘s strategizing behaviours. Her work remained focussed on top management and, while being useful in highlighting the role of process contingencies, the management‘s behaviour also needs attention in future implementation research. This is important as most strategy process literature identified middle managers with the responsibility for implementation (Wooldrige, Schmid and Floyd, 2008). Future research needs to look at both top and middle management behaviours in the strategy implementation of strategic continuity and strategic change.
23
2.7. Processual views and their treatment of strateg2y implementation
Strategy process (Van de Ven, 1992; Sminia, 2009) and recent Strategy-as-practice (Jarzabkowski and Spee, 2009) both share processual thinking, albeit with a different focus. Whittington (2007) detailed the differences in those two views, whereas Carter et al. (2008) criticised strategy-as-practice for being fashionable yet lacking focus. It is important to look at the situation of strategy implementation research in the strategy-as-process and strategy-as-practice literatures to clearly establish the research gaps informing this present thesis. Initially, a critical analysis of implementation research in the strategy process literature is provided, followed by the same for strategy-as-practice. This is done in view of the theoretical position of this thesis being inclined towards strategy implementation as a process with activities, actors, and process trajectories as generative mechanisms (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006; Sminia, 2009). These and other generative mechanisms explain sequences in strategizing processes and may help explain outcomes at a particular time.
Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst (2006) critically reviewed strategy process literature and repeatedly highlighted a) relatively little attention to strategy implementation issues; b) the reduction of strategy implementation as an operational and tactical phenomenon; and c) the need for strategy process research to analyse implementation characteristics and their impact on strategic performance. Dederichs (2010) emphasised that strategy implementation needs research focus, distinct from other strategizing issues in the Strategy-as-Practice (S-as-P) literature. The limited research attention to strategy implementation in those processual views and inattention to organizational performance outcomes is discussed hereunder.
2.7.1. Strategy process and strategy implementation
The strategy process literature is full of different conceptualisations of strategy process, including rational, logical incrementalism, evolutionary, life cycle, teleogical and dialectic among others (Van de Ven and Poole, 1995; Das and Teng, 1999; Burgleman, 1983; Quinn, 1980). The strategy process literature is too descriptive and needs research that provides information for process patterns that help improve outcomes (Sminia, 2009). The strategy process literature can be divided into either
24 the type of strategy process undertaken by firms (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006; Van de Ven and Poole, 1995) or the cognitive processes pursued (Narayanan et al., 2011). Narayanan et al. (2011) recently highlighted the cognitive nature of strategy processes and identified strategy implementation as one of four strategic cognition processes; others included strategy formulation, strategic change, and organizational learning.
Sminia (2009) recognised two groups of scholars who either consider rational- decision making as the benchmark for strategy process (for example, Barney and Hesterly, 2008) or strategy process as an inconsistent, emergent process of strategy-making (for example Mintzberg et al., 2003). In those two conceptualisations, strategy implementation is either a separate process to strategy formulation or a part of the overall strategy-formation process. This is also clear in the recent literature reviews on strategy process (Hutzschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006) and strategy implementation (Li et al., 2010). Burgleman (1983), however, argued that implementation may precede formulation in some cases thus raising doubts about the relevance of rationality in the strategy process.
Sminia (2009: 99) himself defined strategy formulation as a process of collusion between ‗deliberate managerial intentions‘, ‗subsequent implementation effort‘ and ‗unanticipated emerging developments‘. This unitary conceptualisation of strategy process has received some criticism from Strategy-as-Practice scholars (Johnson et al., 2003), arguing for the need to look at the micro details of processes. Overall, theoretical differences remain in: a) how distinct is implementation effort in the strategy process and b) how much deviation from intended strategy resulting from strategy emergence leads to changes in strategy implementation. It is a surprisingly honest observation by Sminia (2009: 114) following his review of the strategy formation process literature that ‗What appears to be lacking is an elaborate answer to the ‗how to‘ question.‘
Whittington (2007: 1581) criticised the lack of guidance for managers within the emergent view of the strategy process (Mintzberg et al., 1999) as a consequence of the diminished value assigned to strategic practices and the detachment of organizational outcomes from strategic intentions. It is interesting to note here that